DOCSLIB.ORG

The Economic Impact of Coal and Coal-Fired Power Generation in West Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Economic Impact of Coal and Coal-Fired Power Generation in West Virginia THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COAL AND COAL-FIRED POWER GENERATION IN WEST VIRGINIA WINTER 2021 The Economic Impact of Coal and Coal-Fired Power Generation in West Virginia is published by: Bureau of Business & Economic Research West Virginia University College of Business and Economics PO Box 6527, Morgantown, WV 26506-6527 (304) 293-7831; [email protected] bber.wvu.edu WRITTEN BY Christiadi PhD Research Associate Eric Bowen PhD Research Assistant Professor John Deskins PhD Director Priscila Borges Marques Dos Santos Research Scholar Funding for this research was provided by the West Virginia Coal Association. The opinions herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the West Virginia Coal Association or the West Virginia University Board of Governors. © Copyright 2021 WVU Research Corporation ii Bureau of Business & Economic Research Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Coal and the West Virginia Economy: Recent Trends ......................................................................... 2 3 West Virginia Coal Exports ................................................................................................................ 11 4 Economic Impact of Coal Production in West Virginia ..................................................................... 14 5 Economic Impact of Coal-Fired Power Generation in West Virginia ................................................ 16 5.1 Grant County ........................................................................................................................... 17 5.2 Harrison County ....................................................................................................................... 18 5.3 Marion County ......................................................................................................................... 19 5.4 Marshall County ...................................................................................................................... 20 5.5 Mason County ......................................................................................................................... 21 5.6 Monongalia County ................................................................................................................. 22 5.7 Pleasants County ..................................................................................................................... 23 5.8 Putnam County ........................................................................................................................ 24 5.9 Total Economic Impact of Coal-Fired Power Plants In West Virginia ...................................... 25 6 Economic Impact of Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Generation ................................................ 26 7 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................... 27 iii Bureau of Business & Economic Research List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Economic Impact of Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Generation in West Virginia ................. vi Figure 2: Annual Coal Production, West Virginia vs Other U.S. States ......................................................... 2 Figure 3: West Virginia Share of U.S. Annual Coal Production ..................................................................... 3 Figure 4: West Virginia Regional Coal Production ........................................................................................ 4 Figure 5: Coal Mining Employment in West Virginia .................................................................................... 5 Figure 6: Average Annual Wage by Industry, West Virginia, 2019 ............................................................... 6 Figure 7: Coal Mining Share of Total Employment and Wages .................................................................... 7 Figure 8: Distribution of West Virginia Coal by Consumer ........................................................................... 8 Figure 9: West Virginia Coal Shipments to Power Plants by Destination State, 2011 vs 2019 ..................... 9 Figure 10: U.S. Coal Demand Forecast ........................................................................................................ 10 Figure 11: Coal Exports, West Virginia vs Other U.S. States ....................................................................... 11 Figure 12: West Virginia Coal Exports as a Share of U.S. Coal Exports ....................................................... 12 Figure 13: West Virginia Coal Exports as a Share of the State’s Total Exports ........................................... 13 Figure 14: Economic Impact of Coal Mining in West Virginia ..................................................................... 15 Figure 15: West Virginia Coal Power Plants Included in the Analysis ......................................................... 16 Figure 16: Economic Impact of Coal-Fired Power Plant in Grant County ................................................... 17 Figure 17: Economic Impact of Coal-Fired Power Plant in Harrison County .............................................. 18 Figure 18: Economic Impact of Coal-Fired Power Plant in Marion County ................................................ 19 Figure 19: Economic Impact of Coal-Fired Power Plant in Marshall County .............................................. 20 Figure 20: Economic Impact of Coal-Fired Power Plant in Mason County ................................................. 21 Figure 21: Economic Impact of Coal-Fired Power Plants in Monongalia County ....................................... 22 Figure 22: Economic Impact of Coal-Fired Power Plant Pleasants County ................................................. 23 Figure 23: Economic Impact of Coal-Fired Power Plant in Putnam County ................................................ 24 Figure 24: Economic Impact of All Coal-Fired Power Generations in West Virginia .................................. 25 Figure 25: Economic Impact of Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Generation in West Virginia .............. 26 Appendix 1: West Virginia Coal Exports by Country of Destination, 2020 ................................................. 27 Appendix 2: World Coal Exports, West Virginia vs. Other Counties, 2020 ................................................. 28 iv Bureau of Business & Economic Research Executive Summary While coal production in West Virginia has declined by more than 50 percent over the past decade or so, the sector remains an important part of the state’s economy. In this report, we consider the contribution of coal mining and coal-fired power generation to the state’s employment base, economic output, and tax revenue. We begin with a detailed examination of recent trends in coal production, employment, employee compensation, and coal distribution for West Virginia over the past several years. We also consider coal exports, which may provide a potential growth area as domestic demand for coal declines over the long term. The core of this report is an estimate of the economic impact of coal and coal-fired power generations on the West Virginia economy. Statistics indicate that coal mining directly employs more than 13 thousand workers in West Virginia who earn a total compensation of around $1.5 billion annually. Further, our estimates indicate that coal mines spend a total of around $6.5 billion in the state’s economy directly. However, the total economic impact of the industry does not end there. As coal mines operate, they purchase various inputs from local suppliers, thereby increasing demand for upstream businesses. Further, as coal mine employees spend their earnings in the local economy, further economic activity is created. Finally, the primary downstream purchaser of coal–coal-fired electric power generation–injects billions of dollars into the state’s economy, with more than 2,000 high-wage workers. Highlights of our economic impact analysis are as follows: Coal Mining • Coal mining generated approximately $9.1 billion in total economic activity in the state of West Virginia in 2019. • Coal mining supported nearly 27 thousand jobs in West Virginia in 2019. • Coal mining provided around $2.1 billion in employee compensation in West Virginia in 2019. • Coal mining generated around $514 million in severance tax, and other state and local tax revenue for West Virginia and its local governments. Coal-Fired Power Generation • Coal-fired power generation generated approximately $4.8 billion in total economic activity in the state of West Virginia in 2019. This impact is net of the impact associated with the purchase of West Virginia coal, which is already accounted for in the coal mining impact above. • Coal–fired power generation supported nearly 6.6 thousand jobs in West Virginia in 2019. • Coal-fired power generation provided around $725 million in employee compensation in West Virginia in 2019. • Coal-fired power generation supported more than $97 million select state and local tax revenue for West Virginia and its local
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States
    +44 20 8123 2220 [email protected] Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States https://marketpublishers.com/r/AC4983D1366EN.html Date: June 2012 Pages: 700 Price: US$ 450.00 (Single User License) ID: AC4983D1366EN Abstracts The global energy industry has explored many options to meet the growing energy needs of industrialized economies wherein production demands are to be met with supply of power from varied energy resources worldwide. There has been a clearer realization of the finite nature of oil resources and the ever higher pushing demand for energy. The world has yet to stabilize on the complex geopolitical undercurrents which influence the oil and gas production as well as supply strategies globally. Aruvian's R'search’s report – Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States - analyzes the scope of American energy production from varied traditional sources as well as the developing renewable energy sources. In view of understanding energy transactions, the report also studies the revenue returns for investors in various energy channels which manifest themselves in American energy demand and supply dynamics. In depth view has been provided in this report of US oil, electricity, natural gas, nuclear power, coal, wind, and hydroelectric sectors. The various geopolitical interests and intentions governing the exploitation, production, trade and supply of these resources for energy production has also been analyzed by this report in a non-partisan manner. The report starts with a descriptive base analysis of the characteristics of the global energy industry in terms of economic quantity of demand. The drivers of demand and the traditional resources which are used to fulfill this demand are explained along with the emerging mandate of nuclear energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Reporting
    20 ANNUAL 12REPORT Financial hIghLIghts kEy AccOmplishments • maintained annual dividend of $2.20 per share • Achieved a 42 percent increase in the number of retail • Reduced our projected environmental spend to customers served by our competitive subsidiary, $975 million, down from an original estimate of FirstEnergy Solutions (FES) $2 billion to $3 billion • Grew competitive sales by 10 percent, to nearly • Strengthened our balance sheet by contributing 100 million megawatt-hours $600 million to the pension plan • Improved distribution reliability financials at A glancE (dollars in millions, except per share amounts) 2012 2011 2010 Total REvenues $15,303 $16,147 $13,339 NET INcOmE $771 $869 $718 BASIc EARNINgS per common share $1.85 $2.22 $2.44 DILuted earningS per common share $1.84 $2.21 $2.42 DIvidends paid per common share $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 BOOk value per common share $31.29 $31.75 $29.47 net cash from operatiNg ActivitieS $2,320 $3,063 $3,076 FES CuStomErS SErvEd (in millions) 2012 2.6 2011 1.8 2010 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 CompEtitivE rEtAiL sales (in millions of megawatt-hours) 2012 99.7 2011 90.1 2010 80.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CompETITIVE gEnErAtion output (in millions of megawatt-hours) 2012 96.5 2011 96.5 2010 74.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 on the cover: Our Pleasants Power Station located along the Ohio River in Willow Island, W.Va. mESSAgE TO OUR ShAREhOLDERS The actions we took in 2012 will help position your company to compete and succeed.
    [Show full text]
  • (2019) EPA's Final
    Attachment to Part B Comments of Earthjustice et al., EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0173 Assessment Monitoring Outcomes (2019) EPA’s Final Coal Ash Rule, 40 C.F.R. § 257.94(e)(3), requires the owners or operators of existing Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) units to prepare a notification stating that an assessment monitoring program has been established if it is determined that a statistically significant increase over background levels for one or more of the constituents listed in appendix III of the CCR Rule has occurred, without an alleged alternate source demonstration. This table identifies the CCR surface impoundments known to be in assessment monitoring and required to identify any constituent(s) in appendix IV detected at statistically significant levels (SSL) above groundwater protection standards and post notice of the assessment monitoring outcome per 40 C.F.R. § 257.95. The table includes the surface impoundments that were required to post notice of appendix IV exceedance(s), as applicable, or elected to do so as of the time of this assessment monitoring outcomes review (summer 2019). To the best of our knowledge, neither EPA nor any other entity has attempted to assemble this information and make it public. Note that this document is not confirming that the industry notifications or assessments were compliant with the CCR Rule or that additional units may not belong on this list. Assessment Monitoring Outcome # of Surface Impoundments Appendix IV Exceedance(s) 214 Appendix IV Exceedance(s), alleged Alternate Source Demonstration 16 No Appendix IV Exceedance Reported 64 Total 294 Name of Plant Appendix IV Operator CCR Unit or Site Exceedance(s) Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Ash Pond Yes Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Emergency Overflow Pond Yes Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Recirculating Pond Yes Charles R.
    [Show full text]
  • CCS with Alstom's Chilled Ammonia Process at AEP's Mountaineer Plant
    10.3155/2008CP175.167 CCS with Alstom’s Chilled Ammonia Process at AEP’s Mountaineer Plant Paper No. 167 Brian Sherrick Project Manager American Electric Power 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215 USA Tel: +1 614 716 1923 Fax: +1 614 716 2027 E-Mail: [email protected] Mike Hammond Project Engineer American Electric Power 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215 USA Tel: +1 614 716 5931 Fax: +1 614 716 1779 E-Mail: [email protected] Gary Spitznogle CO2 Storage Technical Lead American Electric Power 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215 USA Tel: +1 614 716 3671 Fax: +1 614 716 1779 E-Mail: [email protected] David Muraskin Alstom Power, Inc. Technology Manager Environmental Control Systems 1409 Centerpoint Blvd Knoxville, TN 37932 USA Tel: +1 865 694 5269 Fax: +1 865 694 5203 E-Mail: [email protected] 1 Sean Black Alstom Power, Inc. Business Manager CAP Technology Environmental Control Systems 1409 Centerpoint Blvd Knoxville, TN 37932 USA Tel: +1 865 694 4453 Fax: +1 865 694 5203 E-Mail: [email protected] Matt Cage Alstom Power, Inc. Project Engineer Environmental Control Systems 1409 Centerpoint Blvd Knoxville, TN 37932 USA Tel: +1 865 694 5269 Fax: +1 865 694 5203 E-Mail: [email protected] Abstract: Alstom and American Electric Power are jointly participating in the installation of a carbon dioxide (CO2) capture Product Validation Facility at AEP’s Mountaineer Power Plant. The CO2 capture technology to be installed at Mountaineer is Alstom’s Chilled Ammonia Process; AEP is also working with Battelle to develop a saline formation geologic storage system.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear and Coal in the Postwar US Dissertation Presented in Partial
    Power From the Valley: Nuclear and Coal in the Postwar U.S. Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Megan Lenore Chew, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Steven Conn, Advisor Randolph Roth David Steigerwald Copyright by Megan Lenore Chew 2014 Abstract In the years after World War II, small towns, villages, and cities in the Ohio River Valley region of Ohio and Indiana experienced a high level of industrialization not seen since the region’s commercial peak in the mid-19th century. The development of industries related to nuclear and coal technologies—including nuclear energy, uranium enrichment, and coal-fired energy—changed the social and physical environments of the Ohio Valley at the time. This industrial growth was part of a movement to decentralize industry from major cities after World War II, involved the efforts of private corporations to sell “free enterprise” in the 1950s, was in some cases related to U.S. national defense in the Cold War, and brought some of the largest industrial complexes in the U.S. to sparsely populated places in the Ohio Valley. In these small cities and villages— including Madison, Indiana, Cheshire, Ohio, Piketon, Ohio, and Waverly, Ohio—the changes brought by nuclear and coal meant modern, enormous industry was taking the place of farms and cornfields. These places had been left behind by the growth seen in major metropolitan areas, and they saw the potential for economic growth in these power plants and related industries.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Vulnerabilities for Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants
    Water Vulnerabilities for Existing Coal-fired Power Plants August 2010 DOE/NETL-2010/1429 Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Water Vulnerabilities for Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants Water Vulnerabilities for Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants DOE/NETL-2010/1429 August 2010 NETL Contact: Barbara Carney Existing Plants Program National Energy Technology Laboratory www.netl.doe.gov August 2010 iii Water Vulnerabilities for Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants This page intentionally left blank August 2010 iv Water Vulnerabilities for Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Record
    Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports ISpecial Wastes I Wastes ... Page 1 of 26 You nrc Waste »Coal Combustion Residuals »Coal Cornbustion Pcsidcnls Irnpm.mdrnent 1\s";essrncnt Reports • Special Waste Home • Cement Kiln Dust • Crude Oil and Gas • Fossil Fuel Combustion • Mineral Processing • Mining Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports As part of the US Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing national effort to assess the management of coal • Coal Combustion Residuals • Information Request Responses combustion residuals (CCR), EPA is releasing the final from Electric Utilities contractor reports assessing the structural integrity of • Impoundment Assessment Reports impoundments and similar management units containing • Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings coal combustion residuals, commonly referred to as "coal • Frequent Questions ash," at coal fired power plants. Most of the • Proposed Rule impoundments have been given hazard potential ratings (e.g. less than low, low, significant, high) by the state, EPA contractor, or company which are not related to the • Alliant Energy Corporation's Facility in Burlington, Iowa stability of the impoundments but to the potential for • AEP's Philip Sporn Power Plant in harm should the impoundment fail. For example, a New Haven, WV "significant" hazard potential rating means impoundment failure can cause economic loss, environmental damage, or damage to infrastructure. EPA has assessed all of the known units with a dam hazard potential rating of "high" or "significant" as reported in the responses provided by electric utilities to EPA's information requests and additional units identified during the field assessments. EPA will release additional reports as they become available. The reports being released now have been completed by contractors who are experts in the area of dam integrity, reflect the best professional judgment of the engineering firm, and are signed and stamped by a professional engineer.
    [Show full text]
  • Tcu Winter 2019
    A D V A N C I N G U N I O N C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D M A I N T E N A N C E A Publication of The Association of Union Constructors | www.tauc.org | Winter 2019 0>1 THE VALUE OF ZERO CELEBRATING THE 18TH ANNUAL ZISA® WINNERS PAGE 9 LINDAUER: IT'S ALL ABOUT THE DATA PAGE 6 BRESLIN: A DIFFERENT KIND OF SAFETY PAGE 8 SNYDER: THE SECRET TO BETTER CREATIVITY PAGE 24 55277_Magazine_X2.indd 1 1/25/19 4:354:44 PM A D V A N C I N G U N I O N C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D M A I N T E N A N C E A Publication of The Association of Union Constructors | www.tauc.org | Winter 2019 0>1 INDUSTRIAL GENERAL THE CONTRACTING, ENGINEERING VALUE & MAINTENANCE OF ZERO That’s a fancier way of saying that we’re a group of highly-skilled and experienced union contractors that help organizations plan, build, and maintain some of the most CELEBRATING THIS YEAR’S complex infrastructures around the globe. ZISA® WINNERS PAGE 9 Need something? Give us a call. LINDAUER: IT'S ALL ABOUT THE DATA PAGE 6 BRESLIN: A DIFFERENT KIND OF SAFETY PAGE 8 SNYDER: THE SECRET TO BETTER CREATIVITY PAGE 24 2755A PARK AVE, WASHINGTON, PA 15301 - PHONE: 724-884-0184 - FAX: 724-884-0185 55277_Magazine.indd55277_Magazine_X2.indd 2 2 1/23/191/25/19 12:14 4:44 PM A D V A N C I N G U N I O N C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D M A I N T E N A N C E A Publication of The Association of Union Constructors | www.tauc.org | Winter 2019 The Construction User is published quarterly by: The Association of Union Constructors 1501 Lee Highway, Suite 202 From the Desk of the President Arlington, VA 22209 703.524.3336 4 The Pledge 703.524.3364 - fax By Jake Locklear www.tauc.org EXECUTIVE EDITOR 0>1 David Acord Features 703.628.5545 [email protected] 6 It’s All About the Data ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVE By Steve Lindauer (Contact for rates and details) Bill Spilman 8 A Different Kind of Safety Innovative Media Solutions INDUSTRIAL GENERAL By Mark Breslin 320 W.
    [Show full text]
  • PPCO Twist System
    SEPTEMBER 2015 VOL. 120 NO. 9 FEATURE ARTICLES FIRE DETECTION/32 CH&S 2015 PREVIEW/34 20 Remembering Those Lost Son of a miner killed in Ohio operation follows ‘calling,’ raises thousands to commemorate state’s fallen workers 24 India Coal Logistics Perspective 31 Mining for Data Using Advanced Graphing Software to Mitigate Safety Risks 32 Where There’s Smoke… REFUGE ALTERNATIVES/40 COAL PREPARATION/48 A longtime fire technology, air sampling smoke detection, is now possible for mobile mining equipment 34 Coal Handling and Storage 2015 A new venue in St. Louis promises a diverse collection of hot topics and networking opportunities 40 Underground Mine Refuge Alternatives A look at food, water and sanitation requirements 44 On Solid Ground 34th meeting of International Conference on Ground Control in Mining spotlights research and best of the sector’s experts 48 Tracing the Best Outcomes for Dense Media Cyclones DMC monitoring and optimization based on immediate, precise partition curves from radio density tracers THIS ISSUE 54 Training and Evaluation of Coal Miners’ Self-escape Competencies This month, Coal Age offers several articles related to optimization pro- 56 Increase Fuel Choices While Maintaining a Slagging and grams for coal mining, processing and utilization. On the cover, a Fouling-free Boiler Wirtgen surface miner cuts and loads coal at New Hope’s New Acland mine in Australia. COAL IN THE NEWS 4 Court Approves Patriot Asset Sale DEPARTMENTS 4 OSM Grants Extension on SPR, Coal Operators Say 2 Editorial 4 It’s Not Enough Coal
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Support Document
    Technical Support Document: Chapter 43 Intended Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for West Virginia 1. Summary Pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA, we, or us) must designate areas as either “nonattainment,” “attainment,” or “unclassifiable” for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (2010 SO2 NAAQS). The CAA defines a nonattainment area as an area that does not meet the NAAQS or that contributes to a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. An attainment area is defined by the CAA as any area that meets the NAAQS and does not contribute to a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. Unclassifiable areas are defined by the CAA as those that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS. In this action, the EPA has defined a nonattainment area as an area that the EPA has determined violates the 2010 SO2 NAAQS or contributes to a violation in a nearby area, based on the most recent 3 years of air quality monitoring data, appropriate dispersion modeling analysis, and any other relevant information. An unclassifiable/attainment area is defined by the EPA as an area that either: (1) based on available information including (but not limited to) appropriate modeling analyses and/or monitoring data, the EPA has determined (i) meets the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and (ii) does not contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS; or (2) was not required to be characterized under 40 CFR 51.1203(c) or (d) and the EPA does not have available information including (but not limited to) appropriate modeling analyses and/or monitoring data that suggests that the area may (i) not be meeting the NAAQS, or (ii) contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS1.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 43 West Virginia January 12, January 2017 Only Mountaineer DEP 2017 Submittal Power Plant Explicitly Modeled
    Technical Support Document: Chapter 43 Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for West Virginia 1. Summary Pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA, we, or us) must designate areas as either “Nonattainment,” “Attainment,” or “Unclassifiable” for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air quality 1 standard (NAAQS) (2010 SO2 NAAQS). Our Notice of Availability (NOA) and our Technical Support Document2 for our intended designations for the round of designations we are required to complete by December 31, 2017, provided background on the relevant CAA definitions and the history of the designations for this NAAQS. Chapter 1 of this TSD for the final designations explains the definitions we are applying in the final designations. The TSD for the intended Round 3 area designations also described West Virginia’s recommended designations, assessed the available relevant monitoring, modeling, and any other information, and provided our intended designations. This TSD for the final Round 3 area designations for West Virginia addresses any change in West Virginia’s recommended designations since we communicated our intended designations for areas in West Virginia. It also provides our assessment of additional relevant information that was submitted too close to the signature of the NOA to have been considered in our intended designations, or that has been submitted by West Virginia or other parties since the publication of the NOA. This TSD does not repeat information contained in the TSD for our intended designations except as needed to explain our assessment of the newer information and to make clear the final action we are taking and its basis, but that information is incorporated as part of our final designations.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Service Commission of West Virginia Charleston
    PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON CASE NO. 17-0296-E-PC MONONGAHELA POMER COMPANY and THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY, Petition for Approval of a Generation Resource Transaction and Related Relief. COMMISSION ORDER January 26,20 18 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 I1. BACKGROUND AND DISPARATE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ........................ 2 A . Positions of Parties Urging Approval of the Transaction .............................................. 6 1. The Companies ......................................................................................................... 6 2 . The WVCA ............................................................................................................... 7 3 . The WBIC.............................................................................................................. 7 B . Positions of Parties Urging Disapproval of the Transaction .......................................... 8 1. The Staff.................................................................................................................... 8 2 . The CAD ................................................................................................................... 9 3 . Longview .................................................................................................................. 9 4 . HCPBCP ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]